Curious which companies do that. Are you talking about 83(b) election, or were you really able to convince companies to instantly vest upon termination?

So basicly I write it to secure what a good company wants, A pair of handcuffs chaining me to a position, but I ensure that once I have completed my time, they can't deprive me of that rightfully earned compensation, I do this by adding a clause that all awards vest on termination, nothing complex not a bunch of legalize just all options vest and the clause overrides any and all other verbiage related to the matter in any other section of the contract.

Once again, curious to hear the name of the companies. I glanced at this http://www.linkedin.com/in/kentonsmeltzer from your HN profile, and didn't find any Silicon Valley names, but I'm assuming you might not disclose everything there.

So true. Expensive lesson for these folks.

I had the exact same thought about the "fraudster holding the Occupy Boston d/b/a certificate hostage" story. Especially in that kind of ground-up, loosely-couples collective action scenario, how does overt bad acting not result in a Code Red at the food tent?

However the problem with your math (and most others in this thread) is this: lets say Zynga values me at 4 shares, and I get 1 vested per year. However after two years, and a few splits, I have 128 shares.

The company hired me to work as a 4 share employee, then it grew like crazy and I became a 128 share employee. This is normal in tech nowadays, most people take it for granted that you just get lucky and accept your windfall. But the fact is that you are a 4 share employee being paid 3000% of what you were hired at.

You're not a "4 shares employee" you're a "% of the company employee". The 4 shares are worth some percentage of the company and after all those splits they're still worth that same percentage. Splits usually happen to get the cost of the overalls hares down but a $1m holding in some stock is still worth $1m after the split.

>But the fact is that you are a 4 share employee being paid 3000% of what you were hired at.

So what! This is the point of accepting stock as compensation. They worked below what they were worth for the hope that they would win the lottery. They did win the lottery and now the company wants a redo.

Zynga shouldn't be able to come back, with 20/20 hindsight, and say "turns out we did better than we thought we would so we're taking your stock back".

If they failed they certainly wouldn't be giving employees other compensation to make up for their stock being worthless.

IANAL, but if the termination is motivated by the success of the equity gamble the employee took up front, that looks more like breach of contract. Don't want to keep them? That's fine, but pay what you promised you'd pay.

Whether it is moral or whether it will hurt them in the future are different questions.

Definiton of extortion (from wikipedia):

  Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and
  exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a
  person unlawfully obtains either money, property or
  services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion.

You are acting as if they are being asked to give away something that they own; they are being asked to give up future compensation.

I put this in another comment: "However the problem with your math (and most others in this thread) is this: lets say Zynga values me at 4 shares, and I get 1 vested per year. However after two years, and a few splits, I have 128 shares.

The company hired me to work as a 4 share employee, then it grew like crazy and I became a 128 share employee. This is normal in tech nowadays, most people take it for granted that you just get lucky and accept your windfall. But the fact is that you are a 4 share employee being paid 3000% of what you were hired at."

I know this goes against the way it's always been in the tech industry, but it is not extortion.

I am simply trying to explain why this is a moral issue and not a legal issue.

This is the equivalent of saying: 'your gonna have to take a pay cut or were gonna have to let you go'. It is morally repugnant and goes against everything we believe in the startup community, but it is not illegal, nor should it be.

Now the company says "give us back 2014 and 2015 or you're fired". What would you say?

The larger issue though here is that of a contract. The company has in essence said "we want you to stick around and so we are giving you an incentive of stock options which vest on such and such a schedule."

Later they are saying "give up what we gave you or leave so we can take them back." It's this choice here which says clearly "we are going back on our contracts with you."

A close example might be this "We are giving you a raise and will pay you retro pay next month when this goes through but you have to work fewer hours at your hourly wage" and then the next month saying "sorry, no retro pay for you."

I think this would be a fun case. And now that class action cases have taken a few serious setbacks in the courts, it seems to me that Zynga really should be getting sued by lots and lots of employees in individual lawsuits..... One piranha may be good for dinner, but don't wade into a swarm of them.

It's not at all clear-cut. See sections 5-6 of this article: http://www.bernabeipllc.com/pdfs/stockoptions.pdf

It is the equivalent of saying 'you need to take a cut in pay or you will be laid off'.

In most other kinds of contingent pay that's tortious: if you promise a building contractor contingency bonuses upon meeting certain deadlines, and then you purposely interfere to make them miss the deadlines so you can get the work cheaper (and admit doing so!), you're probably acting illegally. Heck, even basketball players have sued over instances where a team kept them out of a few games solely to cause them to miss performance targets.

Not only is it shady it is a legal term and that term is called bad faith, if you can prove the party acted in bad faith, which if what is being reported about, return it or get fired, then that one is pretty locked up, then they are in violation of the spirit of contract. Faith is one of the foundations of contract law. If you are found to have not honored the faith portion of the contract then more times than not, you will be on the loosing end of a contract dispute.

I think the fact that it continuously vests after a cliff, that it's clear in basically every options grant that you don't receive unvested options upon termination, and because employment contracts repeatedly emphasize that employment is completely at-will makes it pretty clear that you shouldn't count your unvested option chickens before they hatch, and hard to prove that you could reasonably expect to vest all options. The employees that have been there for multiple years will have already vested a big percentage of their stock regardless of what happens.

I think Zynga is repulsive, and will hopefully get punished hard on many fronts for this, but I'm not convinced that what they're doing is strictly illegal. I'm convinced they'll get sued, though.

The exception is M&A earn out or vesting for key hires, which is often yearly, and sometimes even crazier; 1/2/3/4 where it's 10% the first year, 20% the second, 30% the third, and 40% the fourth.

That latter vesting is pretty crazy - with each year, each point is usually getting nonlinearly more valuable as well.

If I'm a small company just getting started, what do I have to attract top talent? Maybe I can't afford to pay as well as the established companies, or maybe my benefits are going to be worse (or nonexistent). But I do have stock options. If I'm a fledgling corporation, stock options can get me more talent than I could otherwise command, and if I'm a skilled engineer, I feel like I can directly affect the fortunes of this company and thus my own net worth if I am compensated heavily in stock options which, in the unlikely chance that all goes better than expected, could make me wildly rich.

Your hypothetical four-share employee certainly didn't sign on just on the strength of those four shares alone. And, quite possibly, the employer played up the possibility of those four shares becoming many more shares down the road if things go well.

They are. They own those stock options, with the provision that they stay out the life of the vesting period. They are now being prevented from holding up their side of the contract. They would gladly stay through the vesting period if allowed to.

What they are doing is like hiring a salesman on low salary + commission and then firing them the day before the commission is paid.